I had the wrong understanding, so it's entirely my fault. I guess I've only been paying half attention. Mucho apologies. I see the working group is copied, so I hope this is sufficient, but if more would be helpful, please do provide the details. The larger point is that SSAC has been thoughtful about this topic and has been evolving its rules. Others are welcome to see what SSAC has done and then decide whether and how SSAC's procedures might apply to their own group. Steve Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 8, 2017, at 6:31 PM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
Recommending it because it is a good practice for organizations to consider term limits.
The example of SSAC was good. They considered and decided that in one role it made sense for them and in another it did not. And then documented it an operational manual. Sounds like good practice to me.
And not doing it can result in the problem of leadership being captured with no way for the organization to redress. This is important even in cases where leadership is not elected. And with elections, while it is true that incumbents can be voted out, running against an incumbent is something people at ICANN often shy away from for a variety of reasons.
avri
On 08-Sep-17 18:15, Steve DelBianco wrote: Clever turn o phrase, Avri! But it’s just not meaningful to recommend that AC/SO’s simply “consider” a Good Practice. If that’s all we are recommending, why bother with recommended practices at all.
From: avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 4:10 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017
Hi,
Yes, one implements a program. A group considering and recording the consideration is an action/activity that would need to be implemented.
The suggestion here is that formal consideration by a group of term limits is a good practice.
It is not a question of considering implementation, it is about implementing consideration.
Avri
On 08-Sep-17 15:46, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Avri — we are recommending Good Practices that the group believes are worth implementing (if applicable).
None of the other 28 Good Practices suggest to “consider” something to do. All are suggestive that implementation is a good practice, and all our recommendations imply that AC/SO/Groups should therefore “consider" implementation.
Steve
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3E>> on behalf of avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org> <mailto:avri@apc.org> <mailto:avri@apc.org%3E>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3E>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3E>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017
Hi,
My understanding was that the statement being discussed was whether they should consider term limits.
I think this is an important difference. And I think that strengthening the statement into something that is easier to disagree with, is unfortunate.
I think the act of considering the need for term limits is all that is required. You are right, it is not best for all. But considering whether to impose them or not is a good practice as it gives those who hold positions without term limits who may see no reason for term limits, to be challenged by those out of power who may think they are needed. At this point there is no recommendation that all SOAC/AG/C consider term limits so those who want them may be flat out of luck.
I suggest that we avoid change the wording of the recommendation and that we support the recommendation that all entities consider whether they need term limits or not.
I personally believe that yes, we should add the consideration of terms limits as a good practice.
avri
On 08-Sep-17 09:27, Steve DelBianco wrote:
As discussed on our SOAC team call yesterday, we are nearly finished with our public comment responses
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uAjMUtnaigi5-zSMGmmIbvFNcPxGQC0cMB_a...> and updated recommendation
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sT6SscZLT7VK2rVFOMPaiK1Qd8vlVLkm0boRX7I8...> to the CCWG.
One remaining question is whether to add an additional Good Practice to the 28 we already have in our report.
The purpose of this email is to hear from all members of SOAC-Accountability as to whether our report should include this new proposed Good Practice:
*An AC/SO/Group that elects its officers should impose term limits. *
Note that this proposed Good Practice would _only_ apply to AC/SO/Groups that have elections. And as with all of our Good Practices, we describe applicability in our Executive Summary:
In Track 1 we recommend 29 Good Practices that each SO/AC/Group should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices. We do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required. Nor do we recommend any changes to the ICANN bylaws. We do recommend that Operational Standards for periodic Organizational Reviews conducted by ICANN could include an assessment of Good Practices implementation in the AC/SO subject to the review.
And we include this caveat on page 8:
"AC/SO/Groups are only expected to implement Good Practices to the extent that these practices are applicable and an improvement over present practices, in the view of AC/SO/Group participants. Again, we do not recommend that implementation of these practices be required by AC/SO/Groups.”
Please reply to all by 11-Sep with your view on whether we should add Term Limits as a Good Practice.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community